Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Comparative analysis of_learner_satisfaction_and_learning_outcomes[1]

2.
Abstract <ul><li>This empirical study compared a graduate online course with an equivalent course taught in a traditional face-to-face format on a variety of outcome measures. Comparisons included student ratings of instructor and course quality; assessment of course interaction, structure, and support; and learning outcome measures such as course grades and student self-assessment of their ability to perform various Instructional Systems Design (ISD) tasks. </li></ul>

3.
Problem Statement <ul><li>Although the growth of online programs has been significant in recent years, the capabilities and efficacy of such programs have yet to be fully investigated. Most effort in this area has been devoted to program development while examinations of program quality and effectiveness have been anecdotal in nature. With little empirical knowledge about Internet-based education outcomes, the need for research in this area is not only timely, but also imperative. </li></ul>

4.
Target audience <ul><li>Nineteen students, most of whom are pursuing </li></ul><ul><li>a graduate degree in Human Resource Development </li></ul><ul><li>(HRD), were enrolled in the on-campus course. </li></ul><ul><li>These students can be viewed as traditional </li></ul><ul><li>university students who are actively pursuing an advanced degree through full time study on campus. </li></ul>

5.
<ul><li>Nineteen students were also enrolled in the online version of the course. These students are also pursuing a graduate degree in HRD through a degree program that is taught completely online. The online group can be viewed as nontraditional students because they are able to complete their advanced degree without ever setting foot on campus. </li></ul>

6.
Methods <ul><li>This exploratory empirical study compared outcome data obtained from students enrolled in one of two versions of a graduate level instructional design Course . One version of the course was taught on the campus of a large Midwestern university through a traditional face-to-face format while the other version of the same course was offered totally online, with no direct face-to-face contact between the instructor and the students </li></ul>

7.
instrument <ul><li>- The university’s Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) was used to obtain general student perceptions of the quality of their learning experience. </li></ul><ul><li>- The Course Interaction, Structure, and Support (CISS) instrument which is a hybrid instrument of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Distance and Open Learning Scale (DOLES) instrument was used to assess student perceptions of their learning experience. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Dimensions of Distance Education (DDE) instrument which provides a further assessment of the learning environment. </li></ul></ul>

8.
Results <ul><li>The following results are organized around the research questions and include comparisons of the face-to-face and the online students’ perceptions in the areas of satisfaction, course interaction, course structure, and support. Further analysis compares student learning outcomes in terms of course project quality, course grades, and a self-assessment of their ability to perform various ISD tasks. </li></ul>

9.
Students satisfaction <ul><li>These items asked students to rate, on a five point. </li></ul><ul><li>On the student satisfaction indicators, instructor quality and course quality, both groups provided positive ratings. The mean rating for the instructor’s overall teaching effectiveness for the face-to-face group was 4.21 ( SD = .79) while the online students’ mean rating was 3.58 (SD = 1.07). While this difference was significant. </li></ul>

10.
<ul><li>The CISS instrument assessed student perceptions regarding course interaction, structure, and support throughout the semester. Using a four point Likert scale, the students indicated the degree to which they Agreed (4) or Disagreed (1) with various statements. Overall, both groups of students had positive perceptions, with the face-to-face students having significantly more positive views for interaction and support. </li></ul>

11.
<ul><li>the findings in this study suggest that online instruction may not be suitable for courses that require high degrees of student instructor interaction and feedback, such as performance- based training methods courses that rely on considerable mentoring and coaching. </li></ul>

12.
limitations <ul><li>Until the technologies for online instruction better simulate real time interaction, program developers may need to avoid courses that require frequent verbal and behavioral communication between students and the instructor. </li></ul>